Paging Roger Harrabin…
Bishop Hill writes:
Hat tip to several readers who have pointed out Michael Buerk’s comments on the BBC Radio 4 show, the Moral Maze:
“not long ago, to question multiculturalism…risked being branded racist and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers“
I will not respond in kind to this kind of thing. It looks to me like a calculated attempt to provoke a violent reaction. What it really does is to show that Buerk and the BBC are devoid of any integrity. They condemn themselves out of their own mouths.
I hope they continue with this kind of thing. It makes the BBC look like it is staffed by zealots and nutters. It will win them no friends.
…
and in another piece…
Archbishop Cranmer has picked up on Michael Buerk’s contribution to the climate debate.
By equating anthropogenic climate change deniers and those who question the doctrine and policy of state multiculturalism with paedophiles – whom society, rationally or not, now ranks as the lowest form of life and quite beyond redemption – the BBC has shown itself to be intellectually deficient and morally bankrupt.
But His Grace has a question: If a qualified doctor and government adviser (unpaid) can be humiliatingly dismissed for having co-authored a paper in which a reasoned correlation was drawn between homosexuality and paedophilia, why should a BBC presenter (paid by the taxpayer) not be dismissed for purposely inciting hatred against climate change deniers and multiculuralist sceptics by juxtaposing their reasoned beliefs with the perversion of paedophilia?
UPDATE: Bishop Hill reports: His Grace has reconsidered, and a new post is now here. This follows the line of several commentators here, namely that Buerk was criticising the BBC not comparing sceptics to paedophiles.
Initially, His Grace was persuaded by Bishop Hill’s indignation at the inflammatory juxtaposition of multiculturalist sceptics and anthropogenic climate-change deniers with paedophiles. But, having reflected (and having read some of Mr Buerk’s other pronouncements on the BBC), it is evident that he is actually criticising those who propagate absolutist dogma and hold to an unquestionable creed.
…
Michael Buerk is not himself equating anthropogenic climate change deniers and those who question the doctrine and policy of state multiculturalism with paedophiles: he is lampooning those of his BBC colleagues who do so habitually. He chose paedophiles – whom society, rationally or not, now ranks as the lowest form of life and quite beyond redemption – but, were in not for Godwin’s law, he could equally have chosen Nazis.
===========================================================
Luboš Motl reports and comments on the content, plus provides a link to the audio:
Last night at 9 p.m., the BBC Radio 4 broadcast another 30-minute program about the psychology of deniers:
In denial: climate on the couch (audio, HTML)
============================================================
Where’s BBC’s voice to climate change, Roger Harrabin on this I wonder?
I think these “comedians” have the purpose of preparing the public for the wholesale ostracism of a certain viewpoint. The EU does use and pay “comedians” to promote their viewpoint. Here, for instance, they use a German “comedian” to try to make people participate in an election for the EU parliament.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_fFjRgiOIw
(removed the http prefix; hope the youtube preview doesn’t pop up, i don’t want to force you to see that dolt.)
This just means that they continue the propaganda war.
Robinson says:
February 12, 2011 at 7:23 am
“On the previous week’s programme Buerk described religion as superstition when he introduced a debate about the value of religion to society with [religion is superstition]…But here, given that the majority of the population of this country are athiest or agnostic (or at least don’t hold any bronze-aged superstitious belief), it’s entirely appropriate.”
And all this time I thought Britain was multicultural. Not where religion is concerned, clearly. I will say to you what I say to my students. You may criticize religion, but you have to produce a REASONED criticism of religion. Dismiss it out of hand and you will be graded as if you dismissed multiculturalism out of hand.
Caution! That radio program may cause nausea, vomiting and brain hemorrhage.
Disgusting and vile garbage… Absolute drivel.
Still gives me the creeps.
Cold Englishman says:
February 12, 2011 at 7:53 am
Yes the BBC has gone barmy and has been like it for many years, especially with news, current affairs and documentaries, and then they redeem themselves. Last night Friday, on BBC TV 4 they had a stunning programme “Sergei Rachmaninoff: The Harvest of Sorrow”. And no messages about Russia and global warming. If you didn’t see it, you can still get it on BBC Iplayer. Worth the license tax.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
It is programmes like this that the BBC can do well and should do more often. Perhaps they should give up news and current affairs.
I only saw about 20 mins of this programme on this remarkable man. I wondered whether the programme was made long ago since Maestro Gergiev (musicial director of the Marinsky St Petersburg) looked so young.
I pledge to stop watching the BBC, speeches by Hitler and Goebbels, and replays of Osama bin Laden’s fatwas. These lot are not sending the correct messages to our children.
What identifies someone as a “climate change denier”? What kind of person denies that climate changes? Doesn’t the word “climate” imply change? To think otherwise would be daft, or entirely ignorant of the geologic record, or one would have to be very young or profoundly unobservant.
By my definition of a climate change denier (daft, ignorant, or a youngster), note that these are states of being, understanding, or belief. A pedophile, however, is a criminal guilty of committing an act. Thus, to compare a “climate change denier” to a pedophile is simply a gross example of the fallacy of equivocation. The pedophile commits an act, the “denier” holds a belief, or is in a state of being (young or daft). I’m not sure I see any irony here; just monumentally sloppy reasoning.
If however, the term “climate change denier” is meant to identify a individual holding the belief that the tiny fraction of CO2 emitted by mankind is trivial as a climate change driver or if not trivial then most likely limited to an effect that is most likely entirely harmless; and if said individual makes statements and creates arguments to that effect and posts them on blogs, and argues this point socially with friends and family, and writes their congressman, and so on; then an act has been committed. And this act puts the perpetrator in the “same loathsome corner as pedophiles”.
So exercising free-speech on a technical scientific topic in a free democracy is as odious as pedophilia? Now we have false analogy – just more lazy, junk reasoning with a lurid allusion to a criminal sex act committed on a minor.
Sorry if I can’t find any of that wonderful British irony in this.
What Mikef2 said.
Michael Buerk is an excellent journalist, and the Moral Maze one of the rare BBC programmes that actually allow non politically correct commenters to fight their corner.
He was certainly doing a little drive-by on the AGW cabal which runs our lives here in the UK, not least at the BBC. His sarc is camouflaged, but he’s really up against his fellow journalists, and they will know they are being shot at.
Try and lighten up, or we’ll be into that Americans don’t do irony thing…
An up-dated post on Archbishop Cranmer’s blog given below. It is worth a read.
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/02/michael-buerk-exposes-bbc-tyrannical.html
Well, there are two pieces of good news from Olde England.
One is a cracking good play in London that appears to have good reviews as well, that actually does NOT diss us but looks at the whole human situation of people following “noble causes” passionately, intelligently, and idiotically. See Bishop Hill “The Heretic”.
The other is under wraps, coming soon.
“Onion says:
February 12, 2011 at 5:13 am
I’m with mikef2. He was being ironic.
The attempt to medicalise CAGW sceptics is far more ugly in my view”
My impression, too, is that it was not meant to be his personal view on sceptics. I think he was telling us how climate sceptics are viewed within the BBC itself. That is the appalling depth to which they have sunk intellectually and morally.
The BBC is at least guilty of not knowing how to use an audio /sarc button.
Any truly upstanding multiculturalist would know that they will have to live in a world where cultural disbelief in Global Warming is the norm for some parts of the society and these parts of society must be embraced not shunned. Otherwise, is to fall in with the bigots and “knuckle draggers” who find multiculturalism an abomination.
Is it time for Deniobear?
/perhaps too obscure for this crowd.
//might still be funny.
To be honest I think the statement was kind of funny.
Also the statement can be read in a more positive light.
Michael Buerk could have meant the statement to make fun of people who are so blinded by their indignation that they do not see the difference between climate change skeptics and pedophiles or it could have been even used as a self parody.
note: I do not know Buerk’s views or history on climate change.
note2: I have a very high tolerance if not an appreciation for good hyperbole and think it should share the same place as irony in the halls of wit.
The mainstream and much of the alternative media, worldwide, is controlled propaganda. The sooner that is recognized the better. If you are divorced from your controllers it is easy to see that there is no “left” or “right” but rather a split flank strategy to corral “their” sheep in a totalitarian straitjacket. Stop the constant name calling as is as reprehensible as the comment that is being debated. People must unite rather than allow the media to put them in a labeled box and ship them en masse towards that corral. Use reason to influence not insults. Honey not vinegar. (I live in a highly technical area and more than 50% of the highly educated science types consider themselves “liberal”. Make them your ally. Just drop the labels and the philosophies of the individuals are actually quite similar.) Those who support global warming or fluoidated water or vaccinations have not taken the time to study the matter, hence, they rely on the agenda driven media’s false information. They need your guidance.
The record cold weather in the UK must have frost bit some brain cells at the BBC. They are off the scales in their desperation.
After listing to this plethora of sound bites dubbed with a bbc nihilistic narration, I want to give all who reads this a word of warning!
Beware of people who study Anthropology, psychology, sociology and environmental issues with a political opinion about you!
If were to give a review of this Uber-Sh*t, I would say it was the worst drivel I’d ever listened too, at no point was there any indication of satire, or sarcasm! maybe a little reverse sarcasm and hints of “I know what makes you tick” higgery pokery!
complete bull from star to finish.
We skeptics should all sign up to a class action and sue them till the pips squeak…
The clue is in the title of the programme: “The Moral Maze”.
I think that this was sarcasm, not irony.
Theo Goodwin:
Unless you understand that in Britain the majority of the population have no real problem with religions being referred to as superstition, and would consider the idea of such a suggestion being a “moral evil” as being ludicrous, then you really aren’t going to “get” much of British irony, satire, sarcasm or its humour. For the most part in Britain we don’t “do” piety or get over defensive about any religion we may have, or lazily claim we have when the census is taken.
Buerk’s latest comments seem to me to be more a sideways swipe at the (un)thinking which dismisses “denial” to the same pigeonhole as “peopdophiles” rather than at “denialists” themselves.
I agree that he could have been less ambiguous, and I wish he had been, but the distinction could only anyway be drawn by someone steeped in British Radio 4 type culture, not someone who lives in an entirely different environment.
I can’t stand Buerk or The Moral Maze but that’s another matter and I very much suspect that Buerk of the Sissons school of world weary cynicism about the vehemence of another passing fad, whether or not he thinks there is any substance at all to alarmism.
I think the pairing of “climate change deniers” with paedophiles is so over the top it has to be humor. He is definitely poking fun at the BBC.
It reminds me of the line, “I’ll try anything once except incest and folk dancing.”
Jim Murray famously wrote that Philadelphia sports fans would boo a cancer cure. Suppose someone then referred to someone as being almost as despicable as paedophiles and Philadelphia sports fans.
It’s a joke!
If Buerk intended irony, then he or the BBC need to quickly make a statement to that effect. Which will no doubt give the BBC some headaches as to how to phrase it to maintain their staunchly pro-AGW bias, especially after the mistakes they made in their Horizon show. Even if it were intended as irony, then the comment was remarkably insensitive and ill considered given the uncertainties known, and consistently denied by the likes of the BBC.
If Buerk were trying to poke fun at the BBC’s PC policies his wording is most unfortunate. Either he means that ‘climate deniers’ and paedophiles ARE equally loathsome OR he means that both are equally respectable and only considered loathsome by the BBC’s PC attitude.
I fear that it was deliberately scripted to make the association in the public mind. Remember almost the entire BBC pension investments are in ‘green’ companies. Buerk is as worried about his pension pot as anyone else might be.
I am not convinced that he was being ironic. He said it in a matter of fact way. Climate deniers were equated with paedophiles by being pushed into the corner. Multiculturalism was allowed out of the corner here. I detected no hint of sarcasm either. In any event however, he came over as a smug self satisfied twit showing off his sophistry. If he was trying to be either ironic or sarcastic, he failed.
Douglas
Complaint sent to BBC.
Dear Sir, I take great issue with Michael Buerk’s comments on the BBC Radio 4 show, the Moral Maze: “not long ago, to question multiculturalism…risked being branded racist and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers” To compare a whole group of people who only “crime” is to share a scientific opinion about the dynamics of the atmosphere to a group of perverse criminals is truly the politics of the Gas-Chamber. No amount of backtracking, no amount of analysing, no amount to “spin” as to what he really meant, will make this go away. Michael Buerk has only one honourable option, that is to apologise, on air, and then tender his resignation. If he does not the BBC has only one honourable option, that is to apologise for him on air, and then give Buerk the sack.